I. Introduction
Epothilones A (2) and B (4) were discovered by Höfle and coworkers while examining metabolites of the cellulose-degrading myxobacterium Sorangium cellulosum (Myxococcales) as potential antifungal agents. Höfle, G.; Bedorf, N.; Gerth, H.; Reichenbach (GBF), DE-B 4138042, 1993 (Chem. Abstr. 1993, 120, 52841). Höfle, G.; Bedorf, N.; Steinmeth, H.; Schomburg, D.; Gerth. H.; Reichenbach, H. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1996, 35, 1567. 
Although the antifungal spectrum of 2 and 4 proved to be quite narrow, scientists at Merck found that these macrolides are highly cytotoxic. Bollag, D. M.; McQueney, P. A.; Zhu, J.; Hensens, O.; Koupal, L.; Liesch, J.; Goetz, M.; Lazarides, E.; Woods, C. M. Cancer Res. 1995, 55, 2325. The epothilones had powerful activity against mouse fibroblast and leukemia cells (2 ng mL−1) and strong immunosuppressive activity. Gerth, K., et al., Antibiot., 1996, 49, 560-563. By observing the effect of the epothilones on induction of tubulin polymerization to microtubules and noting that 2 and 4 are competitive inhibitors of Taxol with almost identical IC50 values, it was concluded that epothilones act at the cellular level by a mechanism similar to Taxol. Bollag, D. M. Exp. Opin. Invest. Drugs 1997, 6, 867; Nicolaou, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., supra. Epothilone B (2) was particularly impressive in these assays, having a 2,000-5,000-fold higher potency than Taxol in multiple-drugresistant cell lines. Bollag, D. M.; et al., Cancer Res. 1995, supra.
After scientists from Merck reported their findings on the mode of action of epothilones in 1995, interest in these compounds increased. The Merck scientists subjected tens-of-thousands of compounds to biological assays for Taxol-like tubulin-polymerization activity. However, of the compounds assayed, only epothilones A and B proved biologically active.
II. Tubulin and Microtubules
Tubulin polymerization-depolymerization plays an important role in the cell cycle, particularly during mitosis. Tubulin, a heterodimer protein comprising globular αβ-tubulin subunits is the monomeric building block of microtubules. Microtubules are one of the fundamental structural components of the cytoskeleton in all eukaryotic cells, and help develop and maintain the shape and structure of the cell as needed. Microtubules may operate alone, or in conjunction with other proteins to form more complex structures, such as cilia, centrioles, or flagella. Nicolaou et al., at 2019, supra.
Structurally, microtubules are regular, internetworked linear polymers (protofilaments) of highly dynamic assemblies of heterodimers of α and β tubulin. Nicolaou et al., supra. When thirteen of these protofilaments are arranged parallel to a cylindrical axis they selfassemble to form microtubes. These polymers form tubes of approximately 24 nm in diameter and up to several μm in length. Nicolaou et al., supra.
Growth and dissolution of microtubules are regulated by bound GTP molecules. During polymerization, GTP molecules hydrolyze to guanosine diphosphate (GDP) and orthophosphate. The half-life of tubulin at 37° C. is nearly a full day, but that of a given microtubule may be only 10 minutes. Consequently, microtubules are in a constant state of flux to respond to the needs of the cell. Microtubule growth is promoted in a dividing or moving cell, but is more controlled in a stable, polarized cell. The regulatory control is exerted by adding (for growth) or hydrolyzing (for shrinkage) GTP on the ends of the microtubule.
Microtubules are major components of the cellular apparatus and play a crucial role in mitosis, the process during cell replication in which duplicated genetic material in the form of chromosomes is partitioned equally between two daughter cells. When cells enter mitosis, the cytoskeletal microtubule network (mitotic spindle) is dismantled by melting at the center, and two dipolar, spindle-shaped arrays of microtubules are formed outwardly from the centrosome. Nicolaou et al., at 2020, supra. In vertebrate cells, the centrosome is the primary site of microtubule nucleation (microtubule-organizing center or MTOC). At metaphase, the dynamic action of the microtubules assembles the chromosomes into an equatorial position on the mitotic spindle. At anaphase, the microtubule dynamics change and the chromosomes partition and move to the new spindle poles on the dynamic microtubules, where the new cells are being formed. Nicolaou et al., supra. By this process, the parent cell duplicates its chromosomes, which provides each of the two daughter cells with a complete set of genes. When it is time for a eukaryotic cell to divide, microtubules pull its chromosomes apart and pushes them into the two emerging daughter cells. The rate at which microtubules change their length increases by 20- to 100-fold during mitosis relative to the rate during interphase. These rapid dynamics are sensitive to tubulin-interactive agents that exert their antimitotic action at the metaphase-to-anaphase transition. Kirschner et al., Cell, 1986, 45, 329-342.
III. Anticancer Drugs that Disrupt Microtubule Dynamics
A number of anticancer drugs having diverse molecular structures are cytotoxic because they disrupt microtubule dynamics. Most of these compounds, including known chemotherapeutic agents colchicine, colcemid, podophyllotoxin, vinblastine, and vincristine, interfere with the formation and growth of microtubules and prevent the polymerization of microtubules by diverting tubulin into other aggregates. This inhibits cell proliferation at mitosis.
Vinblastine binds to the ends of microtubules. Vinblastine's potent cytotoxicity appears to be due to a relatively small number of end-binding molecules. Mitchison et al, Nature, 1984, 312, 237-242.
Colchicine first binds to free tubulin to form complexes. These complexes are incorporated into the microtubules at the growth ends in relatively low concentrations, but show profound effects on the microtubule dynamics. Toso R. J., Biochemistry, 1993, 32, 1285-1293.
Taxol disturbs the polymerization-depolymerization dynamics of microtubules in vitro by binding to the polymeric microtubules and stabilizing them against depolymerization. Cell death is the net result. Epothilones appear to act by the same mechanism and bind to the same general regions as Taxol does. Bollag et al., Cancer Res., 1995, 55, 2325-2333. Epothilones displace Taxol from its receptor, but bind in a slightly different manner to microtubules, as suggested by their action against Taxol-resistant tumor cells, which contain mutated tubulin. Each tubulin molecule of the microtubules contains a Taxol binding site. Taxol and epothilone binding markedly reduce the rate of α/β tubulin dissociation.
Merck scientists compared the effects of the epothilones and Taxol on tubulin and microtubules and reported higher potencies for both epothilones A and B as tubulin polymerization agents (epothilone B>epothilone A>Taxol). All three compounds compete for the same binding site within their target protein. The epothilones exhibit similar kinetics in their induction of tubulin polymerization, and gave rise to microscopic pictures of stabilized microtubules and damaged cells that were essentially identical to those obtained with Taxol. Epothilones are superior to Taxol as killers of tumor cells, particularly multiple drug resistant (MDR) cell lines, including a number resistant to Taxol. In some of the cytotoxicity experiments, epothilone B demonstrated a 2,000-5,000-fold higher potency than Taxol, as stated above. Moreover, in vivo experiments, carried out recently at Sloan Kettering in New York involving subcutaneous implantations of tumor tissues in mice, proved the superiority of epothilone B.
On treatment with epothilone B, cells appear to be in disarray with their nuclei fragmented in irregular shapes and the tubulin aggregated in distinct wedge-shaped bundles. By interacting with tubulin, the epothilones block nuclear division and kill the cell by initiating apoptosis.
Recently, Hamel and co-workers examined the actions of epothilones A and B with additional colon and ovarian carcinoma cell lines and compared them with the action of Taxol. Kowalski R. J., et al., J. Biol. Chem., 1997, 272, 2534-2541. Pgp-overexpressing MDR colon carcinoma lines SW620 and Taxol-resistant ovarian tumor cell line KBV-1 retained susceptibility to the epothilones. With Potorous tridactylis kidney epithelial (PtK2) cells, examined by indirect immunofluorescence, epothilone B proved to be the most active, inducing extensive formation of microtubule bundles. Nicolaouet al., at 2022, supra.
Epothilone A initiates apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells just as Taxol does. Unlike Taxol, epothilone A is active against a Pgp-expressing MDR neuroblastoma cell line (SK-N SH). And, the efficacy of epothilone was not diminished despite the increase of the Pgp level during administration of the drug.
IV. Taxol Side Effects
Taxol molecules bind to microtubules, making cell division impossible, which kills the cells as they begin to divide. Since cancer cells divide more frequently than healthy cells, Taxol damages tumors where runaway cell division occurs most profoundly. Other rapidly dividing cells, such as white blood cells and hair cells, also can be attacked. Consequently, patients taking the drug experience side effects. Chemotherapy with Taxol frequently is accompanied by immune system suppression, deadening of sensory nerves, nausea, and hair loss (neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, and alopecia).
Taxol exhibits endotoxin-like properties by activating macrophages, which in turn synthesize proinflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide. Epothilone B, despite its similarities to Taxol in its effects on microtubules, lacked any IFN-γ-treated murine-macrophage stimulatory activity as measured by nitric oxide release, nor did it inhibit nitric oxide production. Epothilone-mediated microtubule stabilization does not trigger endotoxin-signaling pathways, which may translate in clinical advantages for the epothilones over Taxol in terms of reduced side effects.
The importance of the epothilones as therapeutic agents recently was discussed on the front page of the Jan. 27, 2000, edition of the Wall Street Journal. This article states:                But Taxol has its drawbacks. Some fast-dividing cancer cells can mutate into forms resistant to the drug. Often, patients with advanced cancer who respond at first to Taxol don't respond after several cycles of treatment because their cells become resistant, too. Despite conducting dozens of trials over the years, Bristol-Myers has been frustrated in its efforts to expand Taxol's effectiveness beyond certain breast, ovarian and lung cancers.        That's why the new drugs, broadly classified as part of a family of chemicals known as the epothilones, hold such promise. In studies not yet published, Bristol-Myers and others have shown that the epothilones disrupt cell division through the same biochemical pathway as Taxol. But for reasons scientists are only beginning to understand, the new drugs are equally effective against cancer cells already resistant to Taxol, as well as cells that develop resistance over time.V. Syntheses of Epothilones        
Based on the biological activity of the epothilones and their potential as antineoplastics, it will be apparent that there is a need for an efficient method for making epothilones and epothilone analogs. Four total syntheses of 4, and several incomplete approaches, are known. See, for example: (1) Nicolaou, K. C.; Ninkovic, S.; Sarabia, F.; Vourloumis, D.; He, Y.; Vallberg, H.; Finlay, M. R. V.; Yang, Z. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 7974; (2) Meng, D.; Bertinato, P.; Balog, A.; Su, D.-S.; Kamenecka, T.; Sorensen, E. J.; Danishefsky, S. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 10073; (3) May, S. A.; Grieco, P. Chem. Commun. 1998, 1597; (4) Schinzer, D.; Bauer, A.; Schieber, J. Synlett 1998, 861; (5) Mulzer, J.; Mantoulidis, A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1996, 37, 9179; (6) Claus, E.; Pahl, A.; Jones, P. G.; Meyer, H. M.; Kalesse, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 1359; (7) Gabriel, T.; Wessjohann, L. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 1363; (8) Taylor, R. E.; Haley, J. D. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 2061; (9) Brabander, J. D.; Rosset, S.; Bemardinelli, G. Synlett 1997, 824; (10) Chakraborty, J. K.; Dutta, S. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 101; (11) Liu, Z.-Y.; Yu, C.-Z.; Yang, J. D. Synlett 1997, 1383; (12) Liu, Z.-Y.; Yu, C.-Z; Wang, R.-F.; Li, G. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 5261; (13) Mulzer, J.; Mantoulidis, A.; Öhler, E. Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 7725; and (13) Bijoy, P.; Avery, M. A. Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39 1209.
Methods for making epothilone and epothilone analogs also have been described in the patent literature, including: (1) Schinzer et al., WO 98/08849, entitled “Method for Producing Epothilones, and Intermediate Products Obtained During the Production Process”; and (2) Reichanbach et al., WO 98/22461, entitled “Epothilone C, D, E, and F, Production Process, and Their Use as Cytostatic as well as Phytosanitary Agents.” One disadvantage associated with these prior processes for synthesizing epothilones is the lack of stereoselectivity in the production of the Z trisubstituted bond of the desepoxyepothilone. As a result, a new synthetic approach to epothilones and epothilone analogs is required which addresses this and other problems associated with syntheses of the epothilones known prior to the present disclosure.